People's rationale in deciding their vote
Urban Hiker
Posts: 1,312
By: Jeremy R. Hammond
From: http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Should-You-Vote-by-Jeremy-R-Hammond-081020-129.html
With the U.S. presidential election fast approaching, Americans are settling on their decision for who would best take their country in the right direction and serve their interests. Most view the political system with cynicism. Most see the two dominant political parties, Democratic and Republican, as serving the interests of corporations and the financial elite, but not their own. Many feel disenfranchised. Many feel that to participate in a system that merely perpetuates the status quo without offering any hope for real change is to grant it legitimacy when it deserves none. And, if past trends are any indication, most won't vote.
Among those who will cast their ballot, most, even those who will vote along party lines, view both Barack Obama and John McCain with skepticism. They are both seen negatively, both representing the established order. But one or the other of them is viewed as the lesser evil. To keep the greater evil out of power, a vote for the lesser one becomes necessary.
This remains true even when there are alternatives to the Democratic and Republican candidates, and even when the alternative candidates are seen far more as representing American interests and far less as being corrupted. A great many voters will vote for who they see as a lesser evil rather than who they see as actually being a good candidate because they so greatly fear the possibility of the greater evil gaining power.
This voting strategy is deeply ingrained. During the 2000 election, Ralph Nader was an extraordinarily popular candidate, particularly among the left. He was seen as far more worthy than the Democratic candidate Al Gore. And yet many liberals who shared that view chastised their fellow leftists for casting their vote for Nader, particularly when it came down to the Florida election.
The reasoning is straightforward: voting for Nader meant not voting for Gore, which meant George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, had a better chance of winning. Voting for Nader helped ensure a Bush win, the argument goes, because liberals might swing their vote away from Gore, but conservatives were less likely to do so. Nader didn't have nearly as good a chance as winning as Gore, and so the strategic goal of keeping Bush from power meant voting for Gore even if Nader was the better candidate.
While this appears to be a perfectly logical argument and pragmatic voting strategy, it is rooted upon a number of fallacies. First and foremost is the deeply ingrained belief that alternative candidates don't have a chance of winning, and so to vote for one would mean "wasting" your vote.
This year, the most extraordinary candidate was, hands down, Ron Paul. He was extremely popular, and remains so after having withdrawn his candidacy. He made waves in America, and, despite being old enough to be their grandfather, spoke to a whole new generation of voters that are disillusioned with business as usual in Washington. His position on the issues make sense and Americans recognized that he represented real change. The fact that he was even in the running gave hope to many that the U.S. political system might actually be able to function as the founding fathers intended, that a restoration of the American Republic based upon the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land might be possible.
Still, one could turn on the TV and watch news reports where people on the street are interviewed about their preference of candidates and see people saying things like, "I really like Ron Paul. I think he's the best candidate. I like his position on the issues, and he makes sense. But he doesn't have much chance of winning, so I'm probably going to vote for Barack Obama."
Therein lies another fallacy. People don't vote for who they actually like for the presidency based upon their opinion of whether or not they think it is likely that they will win. The "we have to ensure the greater evil doesn't gain power" mindset wins out over "we have to ensure the best candidate wins". But, of course, strict adherence to this electoral strategy can only result in the self-perpetuation of the same political process they they are so disillusioned with in the first place.
The truth is that the only reason a candidate like Ron Paul is "unlikely" to win an election is because people won't vote for him. And they won't vote for him because they think he's unlikely to win, which of course results in the self-fulfillment of that reality.
The American people need to recognize that an alternate reality exists, and that the way to bring it about requires merely a shift in paradigm. American voters should shift their electoral strategy from seeking to put the lesser of evils into power to seeking to elect the force for the greatest good.
There are, of course, those who already adhere to this alternative framework. If there were a few more among their numbers, alternative candidates like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader would gain more votes. They might still lose. But does voting for a losing candidate mean one's vote has been wasted? How much more wasted is a vote that goes towards the lesser evil? You've still voted for the perpetuation of evil.
Far more worthy alternative candidates might still lose, but it wouldn't mean votes were wasted. The increased percentage of the votes that went towards them would send a powerful message to Washington. It would encourage more people in the next election to do the same and vote their conscience, rather than adhering to a voting strategy that virtually guarantees nothing will ever substantially change.
Eventually, the number of votes being cast towards alternative candidates would be enough that the message from the American public could no longer be ignored. Even if still resulting in a loss for the worthiest candidate, it would remain a win for the American public, because whichever evil from whichever party did win the election would be under far greater pressure to implement real reform.
And for Americans who don't believe their voice is heard in Washington or that public pressure has any effect, simple refresher course in history could remind them that advancements in society are not made at the behest of government or the ruling class, but only by pressure from the masses reaching a tipping point. Politicians don't go out on a limb to promote radical change on their own accord. They have to be pushed out there under massive public pressure and under the fear that one's constituency might very well vote one out of power if one doesn't do precisely what they are publicly demanding.
One of the most effective means by which the American people could send a message to Washington would be by voting. There's every reason to be cynical of the political system in the U.S. But there's no reason for despair. There is hope. And there are individuals working within the system representing real hope and real change. More Americans need to take the time to stay informed and get engaged in the political process. And of those Americans who do vote each election, more need to recognize that the "lesser of evil" strategy only perpetuates the framework wherein it remains a choice between evils.
The only real voting strategy that can offer real hope for change is the one wherein Americans vote their conscience and cast their ballot for the candidate they think is truly the most worthy to be called by the title of President of the United States of America.
Until Americans realize this, then there will indeed remain little hope for the future.
From: http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Should-You-Vote-by-Jeremy-R-Hammond-081020-129.html
With the U.S. presidential election fast approaching, Americans are settling on their decision for who would best take their country in the right direction and serve their interests. Most view the political system with cynicism. Most see the two dominant political parties, Democratic and Republican, as serving the interests of corporations and the financial elite, but not their own. Many feel disenfranchised. Many feel that to participate in a system that merely perpetuates the status quo without offering any hope for real change is to grant it legitimacy when it deserves none. And, if past trends are any indication, most won't vote.
Among those who will cast their ballot, most, even those who will vote along party lines, view both Barack Obama and John McCain with skepticism. They are both seen negatively, both representing the established order. But one or the other of them is viewed as the lesser evil. To keep the greater evil out of power, a vote for the lesser one becomes necessary.
This remains true even when there are alternatives to the Democratic and Republican candidates, and even when the alternative candidates are seen far more as representing American interests and far less as being corrupted. A great many voters will vote for who they see as a lesser evil rather than who they see as actually being a good candidate because they so greatly fear the possibility of the greater evil gaining power.
This voting strategy is deeply ingrained. During the 2000 election, Ralph Nader was an extraordinarily popular candidate, particularly among the left. He was seen as far more worthy than the Democratic candidate Al Gore. And yet many liberals who shared that view chastised their fellow leftists for casting their vote for Nader, particularly when it came down to the Florida election.
The reasoning is straightforward: voting for Nader meant not voting for Gore, which meant George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, had a better chance of winning. Voting for Nader helped ensure a Bush win, the argument goes, because liberals might swing their vote away from Gore, but conservatives were less likely to do so. Nader didn't have nearly as good a chance as winning as Gore, and so the strategic goal of keeping Bush from power meant voting for Gore even if Nader was the better candidate.
While this appears to be a perfectly logical argument and pragmatic voting strategy, it is rooted upon a number of fallacies. First and foremost is the deeply ingrained belief that alternative candidates don't have a chance of winning, and so to vote for one would mean "wasting" your vote.
This year, the most extraordinary candidate was, hands down, Ron Paul. He was extremely popular, and remains so after having withdrawn his candidacy. He made waves in America, and, despite being old enough to be their grandfather, spoke to a whole new generation of voters that are disillusioned with business as usual in Washington. His position on the issues make sense and Americans recognized that he represented real change. The fact that he was even in the running gave hope to many that the U.S. political system might actually be able to function as the founding fathers intended, that a restoration of the American Republic based upon the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land might be possible.
Still, one could turn on the TV and watch news reports where people on the street are interviewed about their preference of candidates and see people saying things like, "I really like Ron Paul. I think he's the best candidate. I like his position on the issues, and he makes sense. But he doesn't have much chance of winning, so I'm probably going to vote for Barack Obama."
Therein lies another fallacy. People don't vote for who they actually like for the presidency based upon their opinion of whether or not they think it is likely that they will win. The "we have to ensure the greater evil doesn't gain power" mindset wins out over "we have to ensure the best candidate wins". But, of course, strict adherence to this electoral strategy can only result in the self-perpetuation of the same political process they they are so disillusioned with in the first place.
The truth is that the only reason a candidate like Ron Paul is "unlikely" to win an election is because people won't vote for him. And they won't vote for him because they think he's unlikely to win, which of course results in the self-fulfillment of that reality.
The American people need to recognize that an alternate reality exists, and that the way to bring it about requires merely a shift in paradigm. American voters should shift their electoral strategy from seeking to put the lesser of evils into power to seeking to elect the force for the greatest good.
There are, of course, those who already adhere to this alternative framework. If there were a few more among their numbers, alternative candidates like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader would gain more votes. They might still lose. But does voting for a losing candidate mean one's vote has been wasted? How much more wasted is a vote that goes towards the lesser evil? You've still voted for the perpetuation of evil.
Far more worthy alternative candidates might still lose, but it wouldn't mean votes were wasted. The increased percentage of the votes that went towards them would send a powerful message to Washington. It would encourage more people in the next election to do the same and vote their conscience, rather than adhering to a voting strategy that virtually guarantees nothing will ever substantially change.
Eventually, the number of votes being cast towards alternative candidates would be enough that the message from the American public could no longer be ignored. Even if still resulting in a loss for the worthiest candidate, it would remain a win for the American public, because whichever evil from whichever party did win the election would be under far greater pressure to implement real reform.
And for Americans who don't believe their voice is heard in Washington or that public pressure has any effect, simple refresher course in history could remind them that advancements in society are not made at the behest of government or the ruling class, but only by pressure from the masses reaching a tipping point. Politicians don't go out on a limb to promote radical change on their own accord. They have to be pushed out there under massive public pressure and under the fear that one's constituency might very well vote one out of power if one doesn't do precisely what they are publicly demanding.
One of the most effective means by which the American people could send a message to Washington would be by voting. There's every reason to be cynical of the political system in the U.S. But there's no reason for despair. There is hope. And there are individuals working within the system representing real hope and real change. More Americans need to take the time to stay informed and get engaged in the political process. And of those Americans who do vote each election, more need to recognize that the "lesser of evil" strategy only perpetuates the framework wherein it remains a choice between evils.
The only real voting strategy that can offer real hope for change is the one wherein Americans vote their conscience and cast their ballot for the candidate they think is truly the most worthy to be called by the title of President of the United States of America.
Until Americans realize this, then there will indeed remain little hope for the future.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I don't believe I can write him in, though. EDIT - I guess I can.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
herd mentality...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/Multimedia-Center/All-Videos/Barriers-to-the-Presidency2
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
But some real grassroots action will be required to change any of that. Both "parties" are comfortable where they are.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Third party's have poor candidates, that's why they traditionally suck.
It's not about the media or the other 2 parties. It's always excuses.
If this is the case why did Ross Perot get so much attention?
What about John Anderson? He debated Reagan on his third party ticket.
If I remember correctly Ross Perot was actually allowed at some of the debates when the debates were still set up by the League of Women Voters. Now, they are set up by the former Republican and Democratic party chairmen who collude with each other to set up the rules and those rules don't include third parties.
the bottom line is public interest which is what both Perot and Anderson had and Nader lacks.
Nader is viewed as a 3 time loser and a nutcase by most of the American voters.... especially the majority of American voters, those over 50 years old.
That's why he doesn't get any attention, his time has come and gone, no-one cares what Nader believes.
I'm not saying I don't believe in some of Nader's ideas it's just that he is not the candidate to get the votes.
Older Americans remember Nader as the regulation happy consumerist that cost them more money for automobiles and lost workers jobs in the 60's and 70's.
Gonzales is actually a better candidate, he just needs more name recognition.
Well, as you state it, it's sort of a catch-22 in my view. If things are truly as you say, and there is no public interest in him now, he certainly won't be gaining any public interest by not being allowed to debate. Who knows, maybe people would get over themselves and what happend in the 60's and 70's and actually be interested in him if they heard what he had to say; many people who make up Obama's fanbase weren't even alive then and most likely are disconnected from those issues now since that's the way things have always been in the world they grew up in.
It could be the same for someone like Obama. I'm not aware of any huge public interest in him before he started debating in the Democratic primaries. Before then, he was just a nobody; most people I know, myself included, hadn't even heard of him. That exposure in the primary debates got his message out and it clicked with many people. Not allowing others to debate simply for the fact that they don't have any apparent interest is backwards. How can there be interest if the major outlets others are allowed to use are closed off.
I don't see it happening. The two major parties have been adjusting their platform enough to capture their base and enough of the center to be elected. That is why the Republicans are having a hard time, because they have been failing to capture the center lately. They became too extreme under the bush administration...much like all of the third party candidates have started off.
Let's face it.... National elections are really popularity contests and the media will always go with the story that gets the viewers.
I don't believe in vast media conspiracies but I do believe in mass media ignorance.
The disadvantage of 3rd parties is primarily their inability to raise money like the Dems and Repubs. The media follows the dollar, Ross Perot did it because he gave a speech at the RNC and he was a billionaire able to buy 30 minute infomercials. If Perot was in the spotlight today he would still be a viable candidate because he would have the funds to work his message and plus he'd have about three times as many cable networks to go with as opposed to the less than 70 stations that he had to work with in 92 and 96.
I honestly believe that the younger voters are smart enough to visit the Nader website. The younger voter is not as ignorant of media bias as we were back in the day when we didn't have the Internet.
It's simple, there are not any good 3rd party candidates.
I must stress this... Most of us here on this forum BELIEVE in Ron Paul we need to support him and his website and send him emails to inspire him to declare himself independent for the next elections. We even need to support him when he is up for re-election in his district should he decide to run for congress again in 2010.
My point was that even if Ross Perot were running today with his billions I have a feeling he would still have a hard time getting in the debates and would most likely be left out of them.
I believe Ron Paul exists. But I know his policies would destroy the environment and our country. Don't be fooled, people have to be held accountable, they won't do it on their own.
Once you read Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" you will not vote for Ron Paul anymore.
I was fooled by Paul for a while too until I actually thought about what it would do to our environment and economy.
What is funny is that The Tragedy of the Commons is used not only to support your position, but to support the notion of privatization. So just as you have coopted the article for your own point of view, it can be seen as an endorsement for Paul's notion of private ownership. So you're completely wrong on this point. I have read The Tragedy of the Commons and for me it is a ringing endorsement for Ron Paul.
So putting that little issue aside, which specific Paul policies would destroy the country? It is silly to think that public ownership is the key to our country's salvation. Some of the most dictatorial and authoritarian countries have created some of the most devistating environmental issues (see China & Russia). So it isn't as simple as you seem to want to believe. Look at buffalo vs cattle for an example of public vs private. Cattle was branded, herds maintained by owners, etc... And we still have an abundance of cattle today. Buffalo were a public resource (whatever that is), where are the herds of wild buffalo today? Weyerhaeuser is harvesting trees and reforesting to create a renewable resource on their private property. They don't have an interest in destroying their property and not being able to use it again. They have an interest in creating a revenue stream.
Until you can restrict the air I breathe, the water I drink to your own property your arguement is worthless. The commons isn't necessarily owned by the public. The point isn't ownership of anything. It is the deregulation he is proposing. What you do on your property affects me. The example was used to show that people will take what resources without regard for sustainability unless they are prevented from doing so by the larger group.
Examples can continue. He would allow you to build a skyscraper next to my house taking away my right to power my house by solar energy. If you want me to continue, I will...
Except that he has specifically said that nobody should be permitted to release harmful pollutants beyond their property as that would be tantamount to trespassing. So he is not pro-"do whatever the hell you want regardless of the impact on others" as you would paint him. The government is clearly the biggest polluter, and the least capable of solving the issue.
yeah, he would rely on nuisance law. Essentially, the neighbor would have to prove that what somebody was doing was harming them AFTER it was already happening. That doesnt work. We need to stop that behavior before people are allowed to do it. I've lived in countries that operate like this before and have seen it in action. Not good results.